J u l y 2 0 1 9

Crime Victims’ Institute College of Criminal Justice ● Sam Houston State University

Addressing Onset and Desistance of Bullying Behavior: A Qualitative Examination Ryan Randa, Ph.D. Brittany E. Hayes, Ph.D.

Youth bullying is an ongoing public health concern that consists of bullying behaviors. The seminal work of Caspi and Moffitt (1993; aggressive, confrontational, manipulative, and often harmful verbal Moffitt, 1993) proposed there is more than one developmental life and physical behavior among youth. Research has suggested that course trajectory that explains patterns of offending across individu- about one third of students have experienced bullying victimization als over time and included two trajectories: life course persistent and (Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014). Bullying adolescent limited. Life course persistent offenders were believed to victimization has been associated with a number of serious mental engage in delinquent and criminal behaviors throughout their lives, and physical health consequences, including suicide (Kim & Leventhal, whereas the adolescent limited offenders had only a brief period of 2008; Holt et al., 2015). Additional consequences of bullying victimiza- heightened delinquency in their lives. This framework attempts to tion include substance abuse, depression, low self-esteem, and poor make sense of the relatively large portion of offenders that have very school performance (Gámez-Guadix, Orue, Smith, & Calvete, 2013; brief criminal careers, usually involving minor and non-violent forms Kowalski & Limber, 2013; Turner, Exum, Brame, & Holt, 2013). of delinquency. This perspective may be applied to bullying perpetra- However, these consequences are not limited to bullying victims. tion. For some bullies, their bullying behavior marks the onset of a Bullying perpetration has been linked to later life violence and nega- criminal career while for others it is limited to adolescence, which tive consequences for the offenders as well (Farrington, 1993; Ttofi, they eventually outgrow (Farrington, 1993). What is needed is a more Farrington, & Lösel, 2012). Youth who display early signs of bullying thorough understanding of this process, thereby allowing those who behaviors are at an increased risk for future delinquent and criminal have bullied to put in their own words why they engaged in the be- involvement (Loeber & Farrington, 2000; Loeber & Schmaling, 1985). havior and why they stopped, if they indeed desisted. A deeper understanding of the reasons why individuals engage in Methods bullying perpetration, and why they stop, is needed to better inform Data were drawn from an online survey sent via mass email during prevention and intervention efforts. April 2014 to all enrolled students at a mid-size southern university. The current study utilized open-ended survey items to assess why Incentives were not provided. The survey was completed by over six individuals first engaged in bullying behaviors during high school and hundred respondents. For the bullying segment of the questionnaire, the self-reported reason why they stopped, if they did, their bullying respondents were asked to reflect on their time in high school. Re- behaviors. Specifically, we explored survey responses in which self- spondents were first asked if they ever took part in any type of bully- identified bullies reflect on their past behavior and provide their ra- ing behavior as an individual or as part of a group. Following this tionale for engaging in and disengaging from bullying behavior during question, respondents were asked how often they participated in the high school. Simply put, this work allowed youth to explain in their different forms of bullying including relational (i.e., “name calling” own words their involvement in bullying perpetration during high and “teasing”), physical (“pushing, hitting, or tripping”), purposeful school from beginning to end in an effort to inform bullying preven- exclusion (“intentionally leaving someone out”), and online/cyber tion interventions. bullying (“Facebook, texts, IM”). Overall, 187 respondents (28.2% of Bullying survey takers) reported they took part in any type of bullying behav- Bullying behavior has been defined by the Centers for Disease Control ior during high school, either as an individual or as part of a group. and Prevention as “any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another Respondents were then asked, “What would best describe the reason youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating part- you participated in this behavior?” and were presented a text box to ners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is type out their response. Respondents were then asked, “What would repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may best describe the reason for no longer participating in this behavior? inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psy- (if you stopped, why?)” and were also provided a text box to type chological, social, or educational harm” (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, their response. In total, 162 respondents provided a valid response on Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014, p. 7). Bullying may be seen as an early why they first engaged in bullying behavior and 143 respondents sign of future delinquent and criminal behavior (Loeber, 1996). Far- provided a response to why they desisted. rington (1993) has suggested that research on bullying can inform Analyses prevention. Responses for why the respondent participated in bullying during Scholars have applied a variety of theories to better understand why high school were closed-coded for the techniques of neutralization, individuals first engage in bullying behavior and why they stop. A de- which are discussed in detail below, using a thematic analysis based velopmental life course perspective can explore critical markers, in- on the five techniques previously identified by Sykes and Matza cluding onset (i.e., when the behavior begins), desistance (i.e., when (1957). Second, responses for the behavior ends), and duration (i.e., how long the behavior lasts) of why the respondent desisted in

Report No. 2019-05

Addressing Onset and Desistance of Bullying Behavior 2 0 1 9 the bullying behavior were closed-coded based on the tenants of neutralization. This respondent stated he engaged in the behavior to developmental theory and focused on major life events and matura- have a “position of control over the victims.” tion. In some cases, individuals reported more than one reason why Denial of responsibility. Sykes and Matza (1957) proposed that they engaged and/or desisted in the bullying behavior, resulting in “denial of responsibility” includes engaging in deviant behaviors that total percentages that exceeded the sample size. Overall, many of the delinquent claimed were an “accident” or “acts that were due to the responses were short answers and routinely contained only one forces outside the individual and beyond his/her control, such as un- or two words. loving parents, bad companions, or a slum neighborhood” (p. 667). In In terms of inter-rater reliability, two coders each hand-coded the total, 118 of the 162 valid responses for why the individual first en- reason for first engaging in bullying for primary and secondary rea- gaged in the bullying behavior (72.84%) included some form of denial sons based on the techniques of neutralization. Overall, coders had of responsibility. The majority of the respondents simply reported, an agreement rate of 87.80% for the primary reason why the individ- “peer pressure” (without any further elaboration) as the reason to why ual first engaged in or desisted from bullying behavior. When the they first engaged in the bullying behavior. One Caucasian male re- agreement rate was calculated to include agreement on either the spondent elaborated on this theme stating, “My friends were picking primary or secondary rationale for why the individual engaged or on somebody and I would help them bully or laugh at the person being desisted in the bullying behavior, the overall level of agreement in- bullied.” A Caucasian female respondent stated, “I was an idiot who creased to 92.07%. On the remaining 13 statements where there was didn’t realize what I was doing was actually bullying because for me it inconsistency in the coding, each statement was read and discussed was actually joking around. There wasn’t any negative intent behind it.” until the coders reached a consensus on the classification. Other respondents stated they were, “trying to fit in,” “was annoyed/ Results upset at the moment and lashed out,” or, “it really wasn't ‘bullying’ per Justifications for onset of bullying behavior: Techniques of neu- se, more like a rite of passage” to minimize why they first engaged in the bullying behavior during high school. tralization. Techniques of neutralization have been theorized to provide a critical mechanism for understanding the process of acquir- Denial of injury. “Denial of injury” includes minimizing or negating the ing definitions favorable to law violation (Sutherland, 1942; Sykes & harm caused by the bullying behavior. Overall, 17 of the valid responses Matza, 1957), and potentially providing an onramp to delinquency, (10.49%) included denial of injury. Many of the respondents reported including both adolescent limited and life course persistent offend- they engaged in the bullying behavior, “just to be funny” or he/she ers. Techniques of neutralization allow the potential offender to “thought it was funny we had heard a rumor.” break momentarily from the accepted social behavior by Denial of the victim. “Denial of the victim” shifts the blame to the ‘neutralizing’ the deviant behavior or excusing the behavior tempo- victim, including the victim’s attributes or behaviors. A little over a rarily through a justification. Five primary justifications emerge as tenth (11.11%) of the responses denied the victim. Examples of “denial distinct means of excusing oneself from the deviant acts, which in- of the victim” included not wanting to hang out with that person, not clude (1) denial of responsibility, (2) denial of injury, (3) denial of the liking the person, claiming, “the people were stupid and lame” and, “I victim, (4) condemnation of the condemners, and (5) appeal to high- found the person to be annoying and wanted them to leave me alone. er loyalties. We utilized the techniques of neutralization as a frame- It was easier to exclude them then [sic] anything else.” Two respond- work to understand why respondents first engaged in high school ents said it was part of the broader group dynamic, with one Caucasian bullying behaviors. male respondent stating, “In any group of friends at any given time, Table 1. Patterns of Neutralization Techniques for High School someone ends up the odd man out; everybody messes with that person Bullying Behaviors (N=162) for no apparent reason.” Some respondents even simply stated they “did not like the person.” Technique Pattern N Condemnation of the condemners. “Condemnation of the condemn- One Technique of Neutralization ers” attempts to justify the behavior by calling attention to other injus- Denial of Responsibility 118 tices, shifting the blame away from the offender. For example, being Denial of Injury 17 bullied shifts the attention from the individual’s bullying behaviors to others and limits the negative perceptions attached to his/her own Denial of Victim 18 bullying behaviors. Overall, 12.35% of responses indicated that the Condemnation of the Condemners 20 respondent had been bullied and that he/she engaged in bullying be- Appeal to Higher Loyalties 15 haviors as a response to the bullying he/she was experiencing. Open- More than One Technique of Neutralization ended responses included “bullying the bullies,” “to join so that I would not be bullied,” and retaliation. These responses shifted the focus from Denial of Responsibility and Denial of Injury 7 the respondent’s bullying behavior to the others’ bullying behaviors. Denial of Responsibility and Denial of Victim 7 Appeal to higher loyalties. Lastly, “appeal to higher loyalties” puts the Denial of Victim and Condemnation of the Condemners 5 demands of a smaller group before the demands or norms of society at Denial of Responsibility and Condemnation of the Condemn- large. Hazing, which involves subjecting new members to humiliating, 4 ers demeaning, and sometimes abusive comments and behaviors, occurs Denial of Injury and Denial of Victim 2 across social groups (e.g., sports teams, military units, fraternities and sororities). In total, 15 of the 162 responses referenced this technique Denial of Responsibility and Appeal to Higher Loyalties 2 of neutralization. Many of the respondents qualified the statement, The most common technique of neutralization was denial of respon- noting the hazing was tied to sports teams. Of the two respondents sibility, followed by condemnation of the condemners, denial of the who did not report it was sports’ hazing, they claimed it was related to victim, denial of injury, and appeal to higher loyalties. Table 1 shows band or “group initiation.” One Caucasian male respondent reported the frequency of use for each technique and highlights that the use he/she engaged in bullying because the bullying victim was dating his/ of the techniques was not mutually exclusive. Only one Caucasian her little sister. male respondent provided an explanation as to why he first engaged More than one technique of neutralization reported for onset of in bullying behavior that could not be classified under a technique of bullying behavior. While the majority of respondents only reported 2

Addressing Onset and Desistance of Bullying Behavior 2 0 1 9 one technique of neutralization in their open-ended response, part of a joke. By defining the behavior and the outcome as a joke, the 16.67% of respondents offered more than one technique as to why potential negative effects of the behavior are discounted. A small per- they engaged in the bullying behavior during high school. The most cent of respondents reported they engaged in the behavior because of common pairings were denial of responsibility and denial of the vic- the demands of a smaller group. tim (N=7) and denial of responsibility and denial of injury (N=7). In One perspective with potential to explain the limited entrée into ag- the former, respondents stated it was both “peer pressure, didn’t like gressive behavior suggests that multiple life course trajectories are the person.” In the latter, the respondents stated, “peer pressure, explained in part by gaps between physiological development and didn't intend to be mean (poking fun at friends)” or that it was just social status (Caspi & Moffitt, 1991, 1993; Moffitt, 1993). Individuals “kids being kids.” “Kids just being kids” highlights both the effects of who are classified as adolescent limited offenders may behave poorly peer pressure (i.e., denial of responsibility) as well as denial of the because of their experienced gap in social and physical maturity. As injury. such, these adolescent limited offenders appear to age out of crime as Desistance from Bullying Behavior their social and physical maturity reach a balance. Many of the individ- In total, 143 respondents provided a valid reason for why they desist- uals in this sample of university students explained their exit from bul- ed from the bullying behavior. Two overarching themes were identi- lying behavior as “growing up.” And, perhaps this suggests that among fied and included: (1) maturity and (2) turning points In addition, a those capable of moving on to university, bullying was an adolescent small minority of students reported both a turning point and that limited expression. Early definitions of bullying proposed that it might they matured. be a means of elevating one’s position in the social hierarchy. It could Maturity. The majority of respondents (N=111) indicated they de- be reasonable that our sample employed bullying others as an unfavor- sisted because they matured and/or realized the harmful effect of able means to a desired end. Our sample uniquely provides insight into their behavior. Many respondents simply wrote, “I grew up” or a group of individuals who engaged in adolescent limited bullying. “matured.” Some respondents added more detail stating, “Decided it Explanations for desistance in our sample ranged from aging out or was wrong even if I had to go against the majority of the group” or, “I maturing, to encountering “turning points,” such as graduating and didn’t want to be perceived as a bully.” Other respondents said they moving on to college. A large number of respondents discussed events realized there was something negative about the behavior and identi- in their life that aided in their transition away from bullying perpetra- fied those reasons (e.g., it was wrong, it hurt people’s feelings, that it tion, such as graduating high school. Collectively it would seem that for was pointless). those college students who reported having bullied in the past that it was a brief expression of behavior justified using one of the techniques Turning point. Alternatively, 36 respondents identified a turning of neutralization and in most cases desistance was attributed to their point, or an event, that lead to their desistance. These events, which own relative maturity. were not mutually exclusive, included graduating (N=11), no longer hanging out with the same “crowd” (N=11), initiation ending (N=2), Future Research and Policy Implications or no longer being bullied (N=1). Interestingly, only one female re- The overwhelming majority of bullying research conducted globally spondent said the bullying behavior ended because someone got focuses on school age children (5-15 years of age), and in many cases involved when “she brought the issue to the teacher.” the goal of that research is evaluating school based programs aimed at Both maturity and a turning point. Four respondents provided prevention (e.g. Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Limber, 2004; Olweus & Lim- both a turning point and said they matured. One female respondent ber, 2010). School researchers often focus on the creation, implemen- said “graduated, grew up” while another had a very different experi- tation, and evaluation of bullying prevention and harm reduction pro- ence. This latter female respondent said, “I stopped when one of the grams (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Limber, individuals slapped me in the face. That was when I first realized that 2004; Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004; Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005). In this I had hurt his feelings, and I never did it again.” A male respondent sample the majority of respondents identified maturing as their reason said that he “grew up” and begin working with at-risk youth. It is for desisting from bullying rather than some form of intervention or clear from these examples that turning points can be varied and that programing. In the case that our findings accurately depict the process respondents may identify both a turning point and the process of of how students neutralize the behavior before engaging, then anti- maturation. Lastly, it is interesting to note that two of the respond- bullying programs which focus on promoting awareness may be more ents indicated they still engage in the bullying behavior. effective. However, we do not know if these students were exposed to Discussion anti-bullying programming or other educational efforts that would have fostered empathy and growth that they might attribute to matu- Whether considering bullying perpetration as a pathway to delin- ration over time. quency, a limited youthful aggressive behavior, or means to establish Effective September 1, 2017, “David’s Law” in Texas was passed to social hierarchy, there is a need to better understand the entire address cyberbullying that occurs off-campus. This act amended the course of it. There are a growing number of perspectives on the “life Education Code in an effort to encourage mental health programs in course” of delinquent behavior, which address an individual path public schools. The Texas School Safety Center (2018) offers events, both into and out of delinquency. Here, survey respondents were tools, and videos for school administrators. Campus Eye (2018) is a presented with an open-ended question regarding why they began mobile application that was developed to help students, parents, and and why they desisted bullying. Given this opportunity, former bullies school administrators report, track, and resolve bullying incidents as were more apt to excuse their behavior than explain it. As it relates they arise. As these programs continue to develop, it is important they to onset, respondent commentary resembled techniques of neutrali- are evaluated with evidence-based practices grounded in research. zation (Sykes & Matza, 1957). From this perspective, the bully does Based on the findings from the current work, practices and programing not condone the behavior and must neutralize his/her feelings of that facilitates ‘growing up’ would seem to be most likely to increase right and wrong or disengage from his/her perspective on morality in desistance from bullying behavior. order to participate. Often, respondents indicated they did not believe the victim was References hurt, and if the victim was hurt, the injury was not that serious. Many Campus Eye. (2018). Campus Eye. Retrieved from https:// respondents reported they found the behavior funny or that it was getcampuseye.com/. Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (1991). Individual differences are accentuated 3

during periods of social change: the sample case of girls at puber- Loeber, R. (1996). “Developmental continuity, change, and pathways in male ty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 157-168. juvenile problem behaviors”. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (1993). When do individual differences matter? Current theories (1-27). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. A paradoxical theory of personality coherence. Psychological In- Loeber, R., & Schmaling, K.B. (1985). Empirical evidence for overt and covert quiry, 4(4), 247-271. patterns of antisocial conduct problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnor- Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and mal Child Psychology, 13(2), 337-353. victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from Loeber, R., & Farrington, D.P. (2000). Young children who commit crime: Epi- here?. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-384. demiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and Farrington, D.P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. policy implications. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 737-762. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice, Vol. 17, 381-458. Chicago: University Modecki, K.L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A.G., Guerra, N.G., & Runions, K.C. of Chicago. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring Farrington, D.P., & Ttofi, M.M. (2009). Reducing school bullying: Evi- cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602-611. dence‐based implications for policy. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 281- Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial 345. behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674- Gámez-Guadix, M., Orue, I., Smith, P.K., & Calvete, E. (2013). Longitudi- 701. nal and reciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression, sub- Olweus, D., & Limber, S.P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemina- stance use, and problematic internet use among adolescents. Journal tion of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Ortho- of Adolescent Health, 53(4), 446-452. psychiatry, 80(1), 124-134. Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., & Lumpkin, C.D. Smith, P.K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for can interventions be?. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. public health and recommended data elements. Atlanta, GA: Nation- Smokowski, P.R., & Kopasz, K.H. (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of al Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Con- types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & trol and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Education. Schools, 27(2), 101-110. Holt, M.K., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Polanin, J.R., Holland, K.M., DeGue, S., Sutherland, E.H. (1942). Development of the theory. In K. Schuessler (Ed.), Matjasko, J.L., & Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and Edwin Sutherland on analyzing crime (30-41). Chicago, IL: University of Chi- behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135(2), 1-14. cago Press. Kim, Y.S., & Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide: A review. Inter- Sykes, G.M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of national Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20(2), 133-154. delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670. Kowalski, R.M., & Limber, S.P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and aca- Texas School Safety Center (2018). Tools. Retrieved from: https:// demic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of txssc.txstate.edu/tools/. Adolescent Health, 53(1), S13-S20. Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., & Lösel, F. (2012). School bullying as a predictor Limber, S.P. (2004). “Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospec- Program in American schools.” In D.L. Espelage & S.M. Swearer tive longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 405-418. (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective Turner, M.G., Exum, M.L., Brame, R., & Holt, T.J. (2013). Bullying victimization on prevention and intervention (351-363). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence and adolescent mental health: General and typological effects across sex. Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(1), 53-59. Crime Victims’ Institute Advisory Board Blanca Burciaga, Ft. Worth Ann Matthews, Jourdanton Jane Shafer, San Antonio Director, Victim Assistance Unit Domestic Violence San Antonio PD Victim Liaison

Victoria Camp, Austin Rodman Goode, Cedar Hill Debbie Unruh, Austin Consultant Law Enforcement Teacher Ombudsman

Dottie Carmichael, College Station Geoffrey Puryear, Georgetown Ms. Mary Anne Wiley, Austin Texas A&M PPRI District Attorney Office of the Governor

Stefani Carter, Austin Richard L. Reynolds, Austin Psychotherapist Mark Wilson, Hillsboro Robert Duncan, Austin Hill County Sheriff’s Office TTU System Chancellor Stephanie Anne Schulte, El Paso ICU Nurse Ana Elizabeth Estevez, Amarillo District Judge

Texas State University System Board of Regents

William F. Scott, Chairman Duke Austin Garry Crain Nederland Houston The Hills

David Montagne, Vice Chairman Nicki Harle Katey McCall Beaumont Baird Student Regent, Orange

Charlie Amato Don Flores Brian McCall San Antonio El Paso Chancellor

Dr. Veronica Muzquiz Edwards Alan L. Tinsley San Antonio Madisonville

We’re on the web www.crimevictimsinstitute.org